By General Leonid Ivashov

8/3/2019 By General Leonid Ivashov

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/by-general-leonid-ivashov 1/32

by General Leonid Ivashov

Global Research, January 24, 2007

Strategic Cultural Foundation (Russia)

Email this article to a friend

Print this article

0diggShar

e

In the overall flow of information coming from theMiddle East, there are increasingly frequent reports

indicating that within several months from now theUS will deliver nuclear strikes on Iran. For

example, citing well-informed but undisclosedsources, the Kuwaiti Arab Times wrote that the US

plans to launch a missile and bomb attack on theterritory of Iran before the end of April, 2007. The

campaign will start from the sea and will besupported by the Patriot missile defense systems in

order to let the US forces avoid a ground operationand to reduce the efficiency of the return strike by

“any Persian Gulf country”.

“Any country” mostly refers to Iran. The source

which supplied the information to the Kuwaiti paper

http://www.globalresearch.ca/

http://en.fondsk.ru/

http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.globalresearch.ca%2Findex.php%3Fcontext%3Dva%26aid%3D4581&t=Iran%20Must%20Get%20Ready%20to%20Repel%20a%20Nuclear%20Attack&src=sp


http://www.globalresearch.ca/

http://en.fondsk.ru/





believes that the US forces in Iraq and other

countries of the region will be defended from anyIranian missile strikes by the frontier Patriots.

So, the preparations for a new US aggressionentered the completion phase. The executions of S.

Hussein and his closest associates were a part of these preparations. Their purpose was to serve as a

“disguise operation” for the efforts of the USstrategists to deliberately escalate the situation botharound Iran and in the entire Middle East.

Analyzing the consequences of the move, the US didorder to hang the former Iraqi leader and hisassociates. This shows that the US has adopted

irreversibly the plan of partitioning Iraq into threewarring pseudo-states – the Shiite, the Sunnite, and

the Kurdish ones. Washington reckons that thesituation of a controlled chaos will help it to

dominate the Persian Gulf oil supplies and otherstrategically important oil transportation routes.

The most important aspect of the matter is that azone of an endless bloody conflict will be created at

the core of the Middle East, and that the countriesneighboring Iraq – Iran, Syria, Turkey (Kurdistan) –will inevitably be getting drawn into it. This will solve

the problem of completely destabilizing the region, atask of major importance for the US and especiallyfor Israel. The war in Iraq was just one element in a

series of steps in the process of regionaldestabilization. It was only a phase in the process of getting closer to dealing with Iran and other



countries, which the US declared or will declare

rouge.

However it is not easy for the US to get involved inyet another military campaign while Iraq andAfghanistan are not “pacified” (the US lacks the

resources necessary for the operation). Besides,protests against the politics of the Washington

neocons intensify all over the world. Due to all of theabove, the US will use nuclear weapon againstIran. This will be the second case of the use of

nuclear weapons in combat after the 1945 USattack on Japan.

The Israeli military and political circles had been

making statements on the possibility of nuclear andmissile strikes on Iran openly since October, 2006,

when the idea was immediately supported by G.Bush. Currently it is touted in the form of a

“necessity” of nuclear strikes. The public is taught tobelieve that there is nothing monstrous about such a

possibility and that, on the contrary, a nuclear strikeis quite feasible. Allegedly, there is no other way to

“stop” Iran.

How will other nuclear powers react? As for Russia,at best it will limit itself to condemning the strikes,

and at worst – as in the case of the aggressionagainst Yugoslavia – its response will be somethinglike “though by this the US makes a mistake, the

victim itself provoked the attack”.

Europe will react in essentially the same way.



Possibly, the negative reaction of China and several

other countries to the nuclear aggression will bestronger. In any case, there will be no retaliation

nuclear strike on the US forces (the US is absolutelysure of this).

The UN means nothing in this context. Having failedto condemn the aggression against Yugoslavia, the

UN Security Council effectively shared theresponsibility for it. This institution is only capable toadopt resolutions which the Russian and also the

French diplomacy understands as banning the use of force, but the US and British ones interpret in exactlythe opposite sense – as authorizing their aggression.

Speaking of Israel, it is sure to come under theIranian missile strikes. Possibly, the Hezbollah and

the Palestinian resistance will become more active.Posing as victims, the Israelis will resort to

provocations to justify their aggression, suffersome tolerable damage, and then the outraged US

will destabilize Iran finally, making it look like anoble mission of retribution.

Some people tend to believe that concerns overthe world’s protests can stop the US. I do notthink so. The importance of this factor should not

be overstated. In the past, I have spent hourstalking to Milosevic, trying to convince him thatNATO was preparing to attack Yugoslavia. For a long

time, he could not believe this and kept telling me: “Just read the UN Charter. What grounds will they



have to do it?”

But they did it. They ignored the international law

outrageously and did it. What do we have now? Yes,there was a shock, there was indignation. But theresult is exactly what the aggressors wanted –

Milosevic is dead, Yugoslavia is partitioned, andSerbia is colonized – NATO officers have set up their

headquarters in the country’s ministry of defense.

The same things happened to Iraq. There were a

shock and indignation. But what matters to theAmericans is not how big the shock is, but how highare the revenues of their military-industrial complex.

The information that a second US aircraft-carrier is

due to arrive at the Persian Gulf till the end of January makes it possible to analyze the possible

evolution of the war situation. Attacking Iran, the

US will mostly use air delivery of the nuclearmunitions. Cruise missiles (carried by the USaircrafts as well as ships and submarines) and,

possibly, ballistic missiles will be used. Probably,nuclear strikes will be followed by air raids from

aircraft carriers and by other means of attack.

The US command is trying to exclude a ground

operation: Iran has a strong army and the USforces are likely to suffer massive casualties.This is unacceptable for G. Bush who already findshimself in a difficult situation. It does not take a

ground operation to destroy infrastructures in Iran,to reverse the development of the country, to



cause panic, and to create a political, economic

and military chaos. This can be accomplishedby using first the nuclear, and subsequently the

conventional means of warfare. Such is thepurpose of bringing the aircraft carrier group closer

to the Iranian coast.

What resources for self-defense does Iran have?

They are considerable, but incomparably inferior tothe US forces. Iran has 29 Russian Tor systems.Definitely, they are an important reinforcement of

the Iranian air defense. However, at present Iran hasno guaranteed protection from air raids.

The US tactics will be the same as usual: first, to

neutralize the air defense and radars, and thento attack aircrafts in the air and on land, the control

installations, and the infrastructure, while taking norisks.

Within weeks from now, we will see the informationalwarfare machine start working. The public opinion is

already under pressure. There will be a growinganti-Iranian militaristic hysteria, new

information leaks, disinformation, etc.

At the same time all of the above sends a signal to

the pro-Western opposition and to a fraction of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s elite to get ready for thecoming developments. The US hopes that an attackon Iran will inevitably result in a chaos in the

country, and that it will be possible to bribe some of the Iranian generals and thus to create a fifth



column in the country.

Of course, Iran is very different from Iraq. However,

if the aggressor succeeds in instigating a conflictbetween the two branches of the Iranian armedforces – the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps and the

army – the country will find itself in a criticalsituation, especially in case at the very beginning of

the campaign the US manages to hit the Iranianleadership and delivers a nuclear strike or a massiveone by conventional warfare on the country’s central

command.

Today, the probability of a US aggression againstIran is extremely high. It does remain unclear,

though, whether the US Congress is going toauthorize the war. It may take a provocation to

eliminate this obstacle (an attack on Israel or the UStargets including military bases). The scale of the

provocation may be comparable to the 9-11 attack inNY. Then the Congress will certainly say “Yes” to the

US President.

General Leonid Ivashov is the vice-president of the Academy on geopolitical affairs. He was the chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet

Union’s ministry of Defense, secretary of the Council of defense ministers of the Community of

independant states (CIS), chief of the Military cooperation department at the Russian federation’sMinistry of defense and Joint chief of staff of the



Russian armies

General Ivashov

The US and its allies started the psychologicalpreparation of world public opinion for thepossibility of using tactical nuclear weapons toresolve 'the Iranian problem'. The US

propaganda machine is working hard to create the

impression that a 'surgically precise' use of thenuclear weapon with only limited consequences ispossible. However, this has been known to be untruesince the 1945 US nuclear strikes on Hiroshima andNagasaki.

After the very first nuclear strike, it will becometotally impossible to prevent the use of all of the

available means of mass destruction. In the situationof a mass extermination of their nations, the

conflicting sides will resort to whatever means theyhave without limitations. Therefore, not only the

nuclear arsenals of various countries, including thosewhose nuclear status is not recognized officially, will

come into play. No doubt, chemical and biologicalwarfare (and, generally, any poisonous substances),

which can be produced on the basis of minimalindustrial and economic resources, will be used.

Currently, one can assert that peace and mankindare in great danger.



Consider the military-technical aspect of thesituation. Practically, the operation's objectivedeclared by the US - destroying some 1,500 targets

on the territory of Iran - cannot be accomplished bythe forces already amassed for the mission. This

objective can only be met if tactical nuclearmunitions are used.

An examination of the military-political aspect of thematter reveals even more significant facts. The

attack on Iran is not planned to include a groundoffensive. Strikes on selected military and industrial

installations can cause a severe damage to theIranian defense potential and economy. Casualtiesare likely to be substantial, but not catastrophic fromthe military point of view. At the same time, it is

impossible to gain control of the territory of acountry as large as Iran without a ground operation.

The planned offensive will entail a consolidation of forces not only in Iran, but also in other Muslimcountries and among the public throughout theworld. The support for the country suffering from the

US-Israeli aggression will soar. Certainly,Washington is aware that the result will be not the

strengthening but the loss of US positions in theworld. Consequently, the goal of the US attackagainst Iran has to be seen in a different light. Thenuclear offensive must boost the use of nuclear

blackmail in global politics by the US andfundamentally transform the world order.

Further evidence of the radicalization of the goals of the US and its allies is available. The early 2007



leaks, which exposed Israel's plans to use threenukes against Iran, were quite dangerous for acountry in a hostile environment, but certainly they

were deliberate. They meant that the decision on thecharacter of Israel's activity had already been made,

and all that remained to be done was toinfluence public opinion accordingly.

The pretext for the operation against Iran does notappear serious. Judging from both the technical and

the political points of view, there is no possibility of itdeveloping nuclear weapons in the near future.

One must remember that allegations of Iraq'spossessing weapons of mass destruction were used

by the US as a pretext for the war against thecountry. As a result, Iraq was devastated, and thecivilian death toll rose to hundreds of thousands, butno evidence for the claims had ever been discovered.

The really important question is not whether Iran iscapable of making nuclear weapons. The only

function of small stockpiles of nuclear weapons notbacked by various forms of support is that of containment. The threat of a retaliation strikecan stop any aggressor. As for attacking other

countries and winning a nuclear war in the situationof a conflict with a coalition of major powers, this

would require a potential that Iran neither has nor isgoing to have in the foreseeable future. Theallegations that Iran can become a nuclear aggressorare absurd. Anyone having at least some theoretical

knowledge of military affairs must understand this.



What is the real reason why the US is unleashing thismilitary conflict?

The activities having consequences of global

proportions can only be intended to deal with aglobal problem. This problem itself is by no

means something secret - it is the possibility of a crash of the global financial system based onthe US dollar.Currently the mass of US currencyexceeds the total worth of US assets by more than a

factor of ten. Everything in the US- industry, buildings, high-tech, and so on - has been

mortgaged more than ten times all over the world. Adebt of such proportions will never be repaid - it canonly be relieved.

The dollar amounts on the accounts of individuals, organizations, and state treasuriesare a virtual reality. These records are not

secured by products, valuables or anything that

exists in reality.

Writing-off this US indebtedness to the rest of the world would turn the majority of itspopulation into deceived depositors.It would bethe end of the well-established rule of the golden

calf. The significance of the coming events is trulyepic. This is why the aggressor ignores the global

catastrophic consequences of its offensive. Thebankrupt 'global bankers' need a force major eventof global proportions to get out of the situation.

The solution is already in the plans. The US hasnothing to offer the rest of the world to save the



declining dollar except for military operations like theones in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and Iraq. But eventhese local conflicts only yield short-term effects.

Something a lot greater is needed, and the need isurgent. The moment is drawing closer when the

financial crisis will make the world realize that all of the US assets, all of its industrial, technological, andother potentials do not rightfully belong to thecountry. Then, it must be confiscated to compensate

the victims, and the rights of ownership of everything bought for dollars all over the world -

everything drawn from the wealth of various nations- are to be revised.

What might cause the force major event of therequired scale? Everything seems to indicate that

Israel will be sacrificed. Its involvement in a warwith Iran - especially in a nuclear war - is bound to

trigger a global catastrophe. The statehoods of Israeland Iran are based on the countries' officialreligions. A military conflict between Israel andIran will immediately evolve into a religious

one, a conflict between Judaism and Islam. Dueto the presence of numerous Jewish and

Muslim populations in the developed countries,this would make a global bloodbathinevitable. All of the active forces of most of thecountries of the world would end up fighting, with

almost no room for neutrality left. Judging by theincreasingly massive acquisitions of the residential

housing for the Israeli citizens, especially in Russiaand Ukraine, a lot of people already have an idea of what the future holds. However, it is hard to imagine



a quiet heaven where one might hide from thecoming doom. Forecasts of the territorial distributionof the fighting, the quantities and the efficiency of

the armaments involved, the profound character of the underlying roots of the conflict and the severity

of the religious strife all leave no doubt that thisclash will be in all respects much more nightmarishthan WWII.

So far, the response of the world's major

political players to the developments gives nocause for optimism. The inconsequent UN

resolutions concerning Iran, the attempts toappease the aggressor who no longer disguiseshis intentions are reminiscent of the MunichPact on the eve of WWII. The intense shuttle

diplomacy focusing on all sorts of internationalproblems except for the main one discussed above is

also indicative of the problem. This is a usualpractice on the eve of a war, aiming to provide foralliances with third-party countries or to ensure theirneutrality. Such politics seeks to avert or soften the

first strikes, which would be the most sudden anddevastating ones.

Is it possible to prevent the bloodshed?

The only efficient argument that might stop the

aggressors is the threat of their total global isolationfor instigating a nuclear war. The implementation of the scenario described above can be madeimpossible by a complete absence of allies for the

US-Israeli tandem, combined with loud publicprotests in the countries. Therefore, these days a



definite and uncompromising stance of countryleaders, governments, politicians, public figures,religious leaders, scientists, and artists with respect

to the prepared nuclear aggression would be aninvaluable service to mankind.

The coordinated public activities must be organizedwith the promptness adequate to the war-timeconditions. The forces of aggression have alreadybeen amassed and concentrated at the starting

positions in the state of full combat readiness. TheUS military do not make it a secret that everything

can be a matter of weeks or even days. There areindirect indications that the US will launch anuclear strike on Iran already in April,2007. After the very first nuclear blast, mankind will

find itself in an entirely new world, an absolutelyinhumane one. The chances to prevent this outcome

must be used completely.

General Leonid Ivashov is the vice-president of the Academy on geopolitical affairs. He was the chief of

the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union’s ministry of Defense, secretary of the Council

of defense ministers of the Community of independant states (CIS), chief of the Military cooperation department at the Russian federation’sMinistry of defense and Joint chief of staff of the

Russian armies. General Ivashof is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Washington has officially unveiled its new nuclear doctrine, the new

START-3 Treaty between Russia and the US is ready for signing in Prague

on April 8, and on April 12-13 US President B. Obama will host the Nuclear



Security Summit in Washington. Evidently, the US is launching a broad

anti-nuclear offensive.

No examples of sacrificial service of the US elites to mankind or peoples of

other countries can be discovered in the US history over the past century.Would it be realistic to expect the advent of an African-American president

to the White House to change the country's political philosophy traditionally

aimed at achieving global dominance? Those believing that something like

that is possible should try to realize why the US – the country with a military

budget already greater than those of all other countries of the world

combined – continues spending enormous sums of money on preparations

for war. Why is Washington actively spreading military activity to space,

building up it its strategic non-nuclear forces, developing global missile

defense, and converting its formerly nuclear-armed powerful Ohio-class

submarines into carriers of cruise missiles with non-nuclear warheads?There are too many questions inviting obvious answers, and the answers

combine into a picture showing that the US intentions are anything but

peaceful.

Let us survey briefly the US strategy over the recent years. In 2002 G. Bush

established a commission to survey the situation in the nuclear arms sphere.

Its conclusions were the following:

- Russia in its current state does not present a nuclear threat to the US;

- The US nuclear weapons do not serve as an efficient instrument of

implementing the US security strategy as they can neither protect the

country from terrorist attacks nor be used to exert pressure on rogue states.

- While being a huge financial burden, maintaining the nuclear arsenals is

not cost-efficient.

After heated debates sparked by the conclusions, Washington decided to

slash the budget of the strategic nuclear forces and to focus ondeveloping new generations of conventional warfare. As a compromise

with the proponents of the pro-nuclear strategy and those still concerned

over Russia and China as sources of nuclear threat, the US Administration

made the decision to withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty

and to deploy a global missile shield.



In 2003, G. Bush approved the Prompt Global Strike concept. The same year

the US officially scrapped the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and

established the Global Strike Command to which 450 system from the

strategic nuclear forces were transferred upon conversion into precisionmeans of delivery with conventional warheads. Work began on equipping 4

Ohio submarines to carry cruise missiles. The submarines' 24 Trident-2

submarine-launched ballistic missiles were replaced with 160 upgraded

Tomahawks. The Trident-2 missiles were also upgraded to carry non-nuclear

warheads. At the same time, efforts intensified to create a new class of

strategic cruise missiles (with the 6,000 km range and the velocity reaching

6 Mach). An extensive program of deploying roughly 1,400 strategic missile

defense installations was also implemented.

The Prompt Global Strike concept envisages a concentrated strike usingseveral thousand precision conventional weapons in 2-4 hours that would

completely destroy the critical infrastructures of the target country and thus

force it to capitulate.

In 2009 the Prompt Global Strike initiative which used to be the favorite

brainchild of G. Bush's Administration was inherited by B. Obama. The

pragmatically minded new Administration reckoned that it made no sense to

spend a lot on nuclear weapons that were impossible to use in practice (due

to the risk of a retaliatory nuclear strike and the concerns over radioactivecontamination of large areas). The wars in Yugoslavia and Iraq were won

with the help of conventional warfare, mainly precision cruise missiles and

bombs.

The Prompt Global Strike concept is meant to sustain the US monopoly in

the military sphere and to widen the gap between it and the rest of the world.

Combined with the deployment of the missile defense supposed to keep the

US immune to retaliatory strikes from Russia and China, the Prompt Global

Strike initiative is going to turn Washington into a modern era global

dictator.

The actual objective of the dovish 2010 anti-nuclear campaign floated by

Obama's Administration is to make the implementation of the above

program cheaper. Presenting Washington's new nuclear doctrine, B. Obama

said the US pledges not to use nuclear weapons even in case it comes under



a chemical or bacteriological warfare attack. Immediately, criticism was

leveled at the authors of Russia's military doctrine for Moscow's not

rejecting the first nuclear strike option. We have serious reasons to exercise

caution, though. Simply, the US arsenals of intercontinental-range delivery

systems carrying conventional warfare are so impressive that it no longer hasto rely on the nuclear strike option.

In essence, the new US nuclear doctrine is an element of the novel US

security strategy that would be more adequately described as the strategy of

total impunity. The US is boosting its military budget, unleashing NATO as

the global gendarme, and planning real-life exercise in Iran to test the

efficiency of the Prompt Global Strike initiative in practice. At the same

time, Washington is talking about the completely nuclear-free world.

Leonid Ivashov is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

World War II Was Unleashed by Adepts of Drang

nach Osten

The information war over the history of World War II is atfull swing, hence it makes sense to re-examine the covertschemes which the West and the shadowy organizationspromoting the interests of its capital used to unleash it.

Quite obviously, expansion to the east and to the south hasalways been the key theme of Western geopolitics. The

notorious Drang nach Osten was by no means Hitler'sinvention – it came into being much earlier, no laterthan in the epoch of Charles the Great (VIII century).

Searches for treasures in miraculous India and itscolonization, the economically motivated conquest and



extermination of oriental tribes and peoples weremanifestations of the same eternal Drang nach Osten whichused to be the legitimizing concept of the West's existence.Even America was discovered in the process of going east.

Quite logically, late XIX-early XX century geopoliticalconcepts and theories were also centered on the conquest of the territories stretching to the east.

Halford Mackinder, an Englishman, formulated the theory of global dominance as the theoretical foundation of GreatBritain's colonial politics when he wrote: “Who rules EastEurope commands the Heartland (Russia – L. Ivashov); Who

rules the Heartland commands the World Island (Eurasia –L. Ivashov); Who rules the World Island commands theWorld.”

The intention to dominate Russia is an obvious element of the vision. US theorist A. Mahan, in his turn, developed thestrategy of strangling the continuous continental mass of theRussian Empire.

The German geopolitical school (F. Ratzel, K. Haushofer, K.Scmidt) regarded a state as a living organism whosedevelopment is accompanied by a progressing needfor space, all the way up to the planetary level.

Again, the theory envisioned eastward expansion,automatically assigning to Russia the role of the primetarget.

The above concepts were not tributes to fleeting fashion butreflected many centuries of aggressive expansionist politics.Whereas Russians fought in Europe only in the name of self-defense or interests of other Western countries, the GreatBritain–France–Germany triangle always (or at leastthroughout the last two centuries) harbored the strategicaspiration to expand over Russia's immense territories or at



least to provoke other players to wage war against Russia.Great Britain was a particularly successful player inthe latter game.

The British connection is obvious in the cases of Napoleon's aggression against Russia and the 1904Japanese attack on Russia's Far East as well as the inthe provoking of World War I. The same applies to aneven greater extent to Hitler's eastern drive.

No doubt, London and Paris were seriously concerned overGermany's growing might and feared that some day theywould have to confront it on their own. As a result their

politics oscillated between pursuing two objectives:

- To avoid facing the German aggression alone;

- To urge Hitler to attack the USSR.

Some factions of the British and French elites advocatedcollective efforts aimed at curbing Hitler's aggressiveness jointly with the USSR. Other factions (especially influential in

Great Britain) sought to help Hitler implement his notoriousDrang nach Osten plan. British conservatives never forgotthe political testament of Lloyd George who said in the earlyXX century that the traditions and vital interests of GreatBritain required destroying the Russian Empire in order tosafeguard British dominance in India and to realize GreatBritain's interests in Transcaucasia and Central Asia.

The switchings between the above two strategies eventually

led to the politics of appeasing Hitler and to attempts tocreate favorable conditions for his attack east. InSeptember, 1938 Great Britain and France signed theMunich Treaty with Hitler and ruthlessly fed Czechoslovakiato him as a reward for the deal. Being Europe's fourthlargest economy, Czechoslovakia was a valuable acquisitionfor Germany.



Those who claim that World War II was somehow triggeredby the Soviet-German Non-aggression Pact should recall thecircumstances of the above drama. The Soviet Union notified

the Czechoslovakian government it was ready to complyfully with the May 16, 1935 Treaty the USSR had signed withthe country. The statements aired on October 2 and 4, 1938by TASS (the official Soviet media outlet) also condemnedthe annexation of the Sudetenland which belonged toCzechoslovakia and disproved rumors that the countrieswhich signed the Munich Treaty had consulted therepresentatives of the USSR regarding the deal.

Upon returning to London from Munich Nenille Chamberlaintold his countrymen that he brought peace from his trip. Theloud statement actually disguised the following two factswhich were of great importance to London:

1. Hitler's military might was now turned to the east,towards the USSR.

2. A declaration was signed with Hitler expressing the wish

of the British and German nations to never again fight eachother.

On December 6, 1938 French foreign minister G. Bonnet andGerman foreign minister J. Ribbentrop signed a similarFrench-German declaration.

The Soviet leadership could not but be concerned overthe developments which appeared to be a collusion

victimizing not only Czechoslovakia but potentially theUSSR as well. Moreover, Chamberlain said that Germanyand Great Britain were the two pillars of European peace andanti-communism and thus had to peacefully overcome theirdisagreements. He said explicitly that it would be possible tofind a solution in European politics acceptable for all partiesexcept for Russia. Was it not an instigation of Hitler's



aggression east at the expense of the security of the USSR?

The question arising naturally is: was it possible to preventWorld War II? I am sure that the possibility existed and

resurfaced a number of times. The first chance was blown atthe time of Hitler's Anschluss of Austria. Even Mussoliniobjected to the audacious move, but Great Britain andFrance somehow remained unperturbed. Not surprisingly,Hitler saw the absence of reaction from their side as a signof weakness and a green light to his politics.

The second chance evaporated when Europe was on the wayto the Munich Treaty. Chamberlain's government even

allowed Hitler to strengthen Germany by absorbing theresources of the Czechoslovakian industry and army just toreorient his expansionist intentions towards the east. GreatBritain staunchly refused to influence Poland – its loyal ally –to convince Warsaw grant the Red Army the right to passacross Polish territory to rescue Czechoslovakia.

Even in August, 1939 it was still possible to prevent theoutbreak of World War II. All that was needed was the

consent of Great Britain and France (whose delegations wereat the time negotiating in Moscow) to the creation of ananti-fascist coalition. The combined military potential of thethree countries was almost twice that of Germany plus Italy.London, however, was guided by its own logic and separatepolitical calculations.

The US also had a lot to do with the pre-war developmentsin Europe. US capital benefited massively from World War I

doing business with the countries at war, and Washingtonacted on the eve of the new global disaster in line with theexperience.

The US in parallel nourished Hitler, helped GreatBritain, and assisted the USSR in creating its ownindustry. Besides, the coming war was obviously



going to weaken the European rivals of the US. Overall,the US was looking forward to the new drama, hoping togain control over Europe, Great Britain with its colonies,Japan, and the devastated USSR as its result. For the US,

the World War opened opportunities to both benefitmaterially and to emerge as a new global empire.

In other words, another – and the last - chance to tameHitler was lost in August, 1939.

In these settings, Stalin’s choice was imposed bycircumstances. It was imperative for him to find a way topostpone if not altogether preclude German aggression

against the USSR.

Contrary to the view widely held among Western politiciansand political scientists, the Non-Aggression Pact signed byGermany and the USSR on August 23, 1939 was not – norcould possibly be – the root cause of Hitler's attack onPoland and of World War II in general.

First, the USSR decided to sign the Pact only after the

delegations of Great Britain and France rejected the optionof signing an agreement on opposing Hitler jointly with theSoviet Union. Stalin had to take into account the fact thatLondon and Paris signed military deals with Berlin, and theUSSR could fall victim to an analog of the Munich Treaty.

Secondly, there was no direct connection between thesigning of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and Hitler's decisionto seize Poland. Hitler penned the plan for a war against

Poland on April 3, 1939, and Germany scrapped its non-aggression and friendship pact with Poland on April 28,1939. Consequently, Berlin decided to occupy Poland – andthus to gain a foothold for an attack against the SovietUnion – that is, months before the August 23 signing of thePact with the USSR.



Thirdly, the USSR absolutely had to take measures to createa buffer zone by shifting its borders west as it was facing animminent war. Already on March 1, 1936 Stalin said in replyto a question asked by US newspaperman Roy Harvard: “I

do not know exactly what borders Germany can arrange inaccord with its objectives, but I suspect that there are forceseager to 'lend' borders to it”.

Signing the 1939 Non-Aggression Pact and its secretaddenda, the Soviet government did not have in mind theobjective of annexing the territories of any East Europeancountries. Its goal was to delay the fascist attack and toprevent the emergence of an alliance of Western countries

for an aggression against the USSR, as well as to curbGermany's expansion east.

These days, the Drang nach Osten still continues. Needing auniversal interpretation of the events of World War II epochthat would suit all NATO and EU countries, Westernpoliticians are upholding the concept of “two totalitarisms”.

Its thrust is that Stalin and Hitler divided Europe via the

Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact but later got locked in a conflict.

Moreover, allegations are floated that Hitler barely made itto strike first as Stalin was planning an attack on Germany.The vision implies that all countries expect for the USSR andGermany were victims.

Since fascist Germany was defeated and ceased to existwhile Russia as the successor to the USSR retained its place

on the map of the world, it is the country that now mustaccept the responsibility for unleashing World War II.

The populations of Poland, the Baltic Republics,Czechoslovakia, and other countries are thus supposed to bevictims, first of a collusion between Stalin and Hitler andthen of the Soviet occupation. Even Ukraine is portrayed as



a victim of the Soviet occupation that - jointly with fascistGermany – fought against a much more ominous enemy,which is, of course, Russia.

Born in the West, the concept of “two totalitarisms” followsthe trajectory of Drang nach Osten – it propagates east.

Even Germany, long restrained by the guilt complex, finallygrew active in this regard. In 2002, the Adenauer Prize wasawarded to E. Nolte, described by the German media as thecountry's only philosophizing historian, for studies provingthat the extermination of Jews by the Nazi regime was –believe it or not – a reaction to the elimination of the classes

of landed gentry and peasantry in Russia. In his view, theGerman national-socialism mirrored the Russian Revolution,the genocide of peoples perpetrated by fascists – theelimination of classes in the USSR, and Auschwitz - theGulag.

Such is “the historical truth” currently attempting to conquerthe east.

Recently the “equal responsibility” concept was echoed bythe notorious July 3, 2009 PACE Resolution. The questionasked by Russia's foes is: does Russia have the right to anopinion in international politics if – as they allege – its ownorigin is “illegitimate” and its status is owed to the odd roleit played in World War II?

Our answer is: yes, it has the right to an opinion ininternational politics. This is what we reply resolutely to the

ideologists and practitioners of Drang nach Osten on the70th anniversary of the outbreak of World War II.



Now that US President Obama's visit to Moscow is over,what do we have at the bottom line?

First, the summit produced a framework document defining

the number of strategic carriers quite broadly (500-1,100)and the number of nuclear warheads – in a narrowercorridor (1,500-1,675). The limits are set by the US andRussian Presidents for their negotiating teams and can easilybe adjusted in case the sides reach another consensus onthe issue.

Secondly, Presidents Obama and Medvedev discussed thefuture of the US missile defense, but this part of the talksled to no definite agreements. All that was said was that theexisting viewpoints would have to be taken into account.Moreover, by default the examination of missile defense waslimited to just two – and not even the most important – of the hundreds of elements it actually comprises.

There were indefinite suggestions to go on discussing thepossibility to cooperate in building the missile shield, jointlyanalyzing the XXI century missile challenges, and monitoringmissile programs across the world. As a clear reference to

North Korea and Iran, the two Presidents warned all thecountries having missile potentials against missiletechnology proliferation.

Thirdly, Russia allowed the US Air Forces to use its airspace,leaving the general public oblivious to details of the deal.

The above are the practical results of the Moscow summit.Can the Russian side be satisfied with the parameters of the

agreement on carriers and warheads? Yes and no at thesame time. Given the current situation in the nuclear armssphere (the condition of Russia's strategic nuclear forces,the level of development of the US missile defense andprecision weapons, the magnitude of the return potentialconcealed by the START-1 Treaty) Russia should regard1,700 warheads as the critical minimum. Why? Estimates



show that with this number of warheads and thecorresponding number of carriers the Russian nuclear forcescan retain functionality after an attack by US high-precisionweapons, launch on warning before nuclear warheads

carried by US ballistic missiles reach Russia, penetrate theUS missile defense (with some 800-1,000 warheads) andinflict unacceptable damage on the US. This is the essenceof the nuclear deterrence.

The build-up of the US supersonic high-precision cruisemissile potential and the development of the US missiledefense capable of intercepting missiles at the boost phaseand warheads after their separation from carriers undermine

Russia’s ability to launch on warning or deliver a retaliatorystrike. In other words, the advancement of the US capabilityto destroy the Russian nuclear forces in their positioningregions (on the ground, on strategic bombers at airfields,and on docked submarines) as well as to intercept Russianmissiles and warheads creates such a situation that evenhaving a certain number of nuclear munitions Russia will notbe able to deliver them to target locations.

Experts project that until 2012-2015 the level of 1,700munitions will be sufficient to keep Russia safe, but in moredistant future either the US arsenals will have to be slashedor Russia’s capabilities to safeguard its strategic nuclearforces will have to be upgraded to preserve the balance. Thelatter option appears unrealistic due to the overall negativesituation in the Russian military-industrial complex and thecurrent conditions and trends in the Russian strategicnuclear forces. What we witness at present is thedegradation of Russia’s military-industrial complex, theageing of its missile arsenals, shortages of weapons-gradeuranium and plutonium, and serious difficulties faced byRussian missile-manufacturing enterprises.

As the US Administration is fully aware of the state of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces and the outlook for them,



its consent to the proposed parameters of the armsreduction was not hard to extract. Speaking precisely,Washington simply tailored the parameters of the proposedcuts to its own military programs whose underlying strategy

is to rely less on nuclear arms and more on advancedconventional weapons, especially cruise missiles and space-based, ground-based, and marine missile defense systems.At present the US leadership in conventional warfare goesunchallenged but the nuclear potentials of Russia, China,and other countries still preclude the global US dictate. As aresult, the reduction of nuclear potentials plays into thehands of the US.

There are a number of reasons why at the moment Russiashould exercise maximal restraint. First, the entire sphere of its national security is in disrepair. Russia needs afundamental analysis of the international situation in thecontext of the current economic crisis and its own globalstrategy aimed at rebuilding the international securitysystem. It should also make resolute efforts to restore itsmilitary-industrial complex. Secondly, the ongoing shifts inthe domestic situation in the US must be taken into account.

The US is struggling with the current global crisis, andWashington is in the process of rethinking its politics, bothdomestic and international. Russia should keep its finger onthe pulse of the process and be ready to support the USPresident’s steps whenever they are constructive. Thirdly,the uncertainty in the US-China-Russia triangle seriouslyfactors into the situation. The Shanghai CooperationOrganization and BRIC summits convened shortly prior to B.Obama’s Moscow visit, and Beijing sided with Moscow at

both forums. However, it is clear that China will beconcerned over Moscow’s de facto consent to thecontinuation of the US missile defense program andespecially over the indications that Russia and the US mightstart implementing it jointly. It is natural for Beijing toregard the plan as a threat. Russia’s opening its airspace toUS military transit is also an alarming development from



China’s standpoint as Beijing probably suspects a correlationbetween the surge of the Tibet and Uyghur separatism andthe presence of the US forces in Afghanistan. Attentionshould also be paid to the fact that China no less than other

countries seeks strategic partnership with the US. Suchpartnership was offered to Beijing unofficially some time agoat a high level and has not been rejected so far.

China is likely to maneuver between the US and Russia, butonly as long as Russia does not drop out of the topinternational politics league where it will remain only in caseit manages to maintain nuclear parity with the US andnuclear superiority over China. While the US and China

mainly owe their geopolitical positions to their economicmight, and their nuclear potentials only further strengthentheir statuses, Russia’s geopolitical standing is based on theproportions of its nuclear arsenal more than on anythingelse.

In any case, it is a positive result that the nucleardisarmament of Russia ended up being postponed. TheRussian expert community has the time to analyze thesituation and to formulate suggestions for the Russianleadership on the relations between Russia and the US in themilitary sphere.

Now that US President Obama's visit to Moscow is over,what do we have at the bottom line?

First, the summit produced a framework document definingthe number of strategic carriers quite broadly (500-1,100)



and the number of nuclear warheads – in a narrowercorridor (1,500-1,675). The limits are set by the US andRussian Presidents for their negotiating teams and can easilybe adjusted in case the sides reach another consensus on

the issue.

Secondly, Presidents Obama and Medvedev discussed thefuture of the US missile defense, but this part of the talksled to no definite agreements. All that was said was that theexisting viewpoints would have to be taken into account.Moreover, by default the examination of missile defense waslimited to just two – and not even the most important – of the hundreds of elements it actually comprises.

There were indefinite suggestions to go on discussing thepossibility to cooperate in building the missile shield, jointlyanalyzing the XXI century missile challenges, and monitoringmissile programs across the world. As a clear reference toNorth Korea and Iran, the two Presidents warned all thecountries having missile potentials against missiletechnology proliferation.

Thirdly, Russia allowed the US Air Forces to use its airspace,

leaving the general public oblivious to details of the deal.

The above are the practical results of the Moscow summit.Can the Russian side be satisfied with the parameters of theagreement on carriers and warheads? Yes and no at thesame time. Given the current situation in the nuclear armssphere (the condition of Russia's strategic nuclear forces,the level of development of the US missile defense andprecision weapons, the magnitude of the return potential

concealed by the START-1 Treaty) Russia should regard1,700 warheads as the critical minimum. Why? Estimatesshow that with this number of warheads and thecorresponding number of carriers the Russian nuclear forcescan retain functionality after an attack by US high-precisionweapons, launch on warning before nuclear warheads



carried by US ballistic missiles reach Russia, penetrate theUS missile defense (with some 800-1,000 warheads) andinflict unacceptable damage on the US. This is the essenceof the nuclear deterrence.

The build-up of the US supersonic high-precision cruisemissile potential and the development of the US missiledefense capable of intercepting missiles at the boost phaseand warheads after their separation from carriers undermineRussia’s ability to launch on warning or deliver a retaliatorystrike. In other words, the advancement of the US capabilityto destroy the Russian nuclear forces in their positioningregions (on the ground, on strategic bombers at airfields,

and on docked submarines) as well as to intercept Russianmissiles and warheads creates such a situation that evenhaving a certain number of nuclear munitions Russia will notbe able to deliver them to target locations.

Experts project that until 2012-2015 the level of 1,700munitions will be sufficient to keep Russia safe, but in moredistant future either the US arsenals will have to be slashedor Russia’s capabilities to safeguard its strategic nuclearforces will have to be upgraded to preserve the balance. Thelatter option appears unrealistic due to the overall negativesituation in the Russian military-industrial complex and thecurrent conditions and trends in the Russian strategicnuclear forces. What we witness at present is thedegradation of Russia’s military-industrial complex, theageing of its missile arsenals, shortages of weapons-gradeuranium and plutonium, and serious difficulties faced byRussian missile-manufacturing enterprises.

As the US Administration is fully aware of the state of Russia’s strategic nuclear forces and the outlook for them,its consent to the proposed parameters of the armsreduction was not hard to extract. Speaking precisely,Washington simply tailored the parameters of the proposedcuts to its own military programs whose underlying strategy



is to rely less on nuclear arms and more on advancedconventional weapons, especially cruise missiles and space-based, ground-based, and marine missile defense systems.At present the US leadership in conventional warfare goes

unchallenged but the nuclear potentials of Russia, China,and other countries still preclude the global US dictate. As aresult, the reduction of nuclear potentials plays into thehands of the US.

There are a number of reasons why at the moment Russiashould exercise maximal restraint. First, the entire sphere of its national security is in disrepair. Russia needs afundamental analysis of the international situation in the

context of the current economic crisis and its own globalstrategy aimed at rebuilding the international securitysystem. It should also make resolute efforts to restore itsmilitary-industrial complex. Secondly, the ongoing shifts inthe domestic situation in the US must be taken into account.The US is struggling with the current global crisis, andWashington is in the process of rethinking its politics, bothdomestic and international. Russia should keep its finger onthe pulse of the process and be ready to support the US

President’s steps whenever they are constructive. Thirdly,the uncertainty in the US-China-Russia triangle seriouslyfactors into the situation. The Shanghai CooperationOrganization and BRIC summits convened shortly prior to B.Obama’s Moscow visit, and Beijing sided with Moscow atboth forums. However, it is clear that China will beconcerned over Moscow’s de facto consent to thecontinuation of the US missile defense program andespecially over the indications that Russia and the US might

start implementing it jointly. It is natural for Beijing toregard the plan as a threat. Russia’s opening its airspace toUS military transit is also an alarming development fromChina’s standpoint as Beijing probably suspects a correlationbetween the surge of the Tibet and Uyghur separatism andthe presence of the US forces in Afghanistan. Attentionshould also be paid to the fact that China no less than other



countries seeks strategic partnership with the US. Suchpartnership was offered to Beijing unofficially some time agoat a high level and has not been rejected so far.

China is likely to maneuver between the US and Russia, butonly as long as Russia does not drop out of the topinternational politics league where it will remain only in caseit manages to maintain nuclear parity with the US andnuclear superiority over China. While the US and Chinamainly owe their geopolitical positions to their economicmight, and their nuclear potentials only further strengthentheir statuses, Russia’s geopolitical standing is based on theproportions of its nuclear arsenal more than on anything

else.

In any case, it is a positive result that the nucleardisarmament of Russia ended up being postponed. TheRussian expert community has the time to analyze thesituation and to formulate suggestions for the Russianleadership on the relations between Russia and the US in themilitary sphere.

Documents

By General Leonid Ivashov